Hoist Error Causes Tragic Death
Four Seasons Homes No.4 Ltd has been fined a total of £66,000 and ordered to pay costs of £21,355 by Birmingham Crown Court after pleading guilty to breaching s3(1) HSWA, and reg3(1)(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
This follows an incident on 8 March, 2007 in the Ivy House Care Home, West Heath, Birmingham, owned by Four Seasons Homes No.4 Ltd. A care assistant, working alone, was transferring an 83 year old woman from a commode to a bed, using a hoist. The woman was left sitting unattended on the edge of her bed and being partially-paralysed was unable to stop herself from falling to the floor. She later died in hospital and an inquest jury found that 'gross failures to provide basic medical attention, to a dependent person, led to an accident that, in turn led to her death'.
The court heard that HSE's investigation found that the wrong type of hoist was used, the employee was not trained to use that particular hoist and correct procedures were not followed. Two people should have undertaken the move and the room lacked sufficient space to satisfactorily operate that type of hoist. The hoist used was also inappropriate for use with someone of limited upper body strength.
HSE investigating inspector Gardabil Singh Tiwana said:
"The resident who died was a frail and vulnerable, partially-paralysed 83-year-old lady. A minimum of two appropriately trained care assistants should have supervised the bed transfer but this procedure was not followed. The moving and handling risk assessment, in place at the time, did not specify which hoist should be used for the patient. A suitable risk assessment, carried out by competent staff, would have identified the limited space in the resident's room and recorded the appropriate type of hoist to use. This should then have been communicated to all staff involved in moving and handling the patient.
Four Seasons Homes No.4 Ltd failed in its duty by exposing the patient to grave risk, a risk that it should have clearly recognised from previous advice given at another care home owned by the company. It is essential to ensure that all equipment, including hoists and slings, is appropriate for the individual being moved or handled. It is also vital that professional carers and nursing staff receive adequate information, instruction and training in the correct selection and safe use of that equipment."
Fatal Failure to access risk
UCS Civils Ltd (formerly Universal Construction Services Ltd) of Rand, Market Rasen, Lincolnshire, has been fined £40,000 and ordered to pay costs of £31,600 after pleading guilty in an earlier hearing in the Magistrates' Court to a breach of s2(1) HSWA. Pochin Concrete Pumping Ltd of Middlewich, Cheshire also pleaded guilty to a breach of s3 HSWA and has been fined £40,000 and ordered to pay costs of £45,000.
The prosecution follows the fatal incident on 1 December 2003. Michael Broughton was working with a group of employees pouring concrete to form the floor of an office building at the Redhouse Interchange near Adwick le Street, Doncaster. A truck-mounted concrete pump was being used to take fresh concrete from delivery lorries to the building floor. A suspended hose used to pour the concrete "whipped" violently when the pump was restarted, throwing one man some distance and fatally injuring another.
HSE inspector Rob Cooper said:
"This case highlights the need to fully consider all the risks involved when planning work and putting in place measures to control the risk. The precautions that should have been adopted were as simple as to ensure that no-one stood close to the end of the flexible delivery hose until concrete was flowing smoothly from it - something which would have not added any significant cost or time to the work."
Failure leads to fatality
Shahid Hussain a member of a family who manages a business that owns and rents-out a number of properties in Burton-on-Trent has been fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £44,500 costs by Stafford Crown Court. The court stipulated that Hussain has to pay the fine by 31st January, 2010 or face a prison sentence of 18 months.
The Court heard that Mr Shahid Hussain was found to be managing a business letting 12 properties, of which nine had gas appliances fitted.
Subsequent checks on the properties managed or owned by Hussain found that Only two had current Landlord Gas Safety Certificates and a number of appliances were classified as either 'Immediately Dangerous' or 'At Risk,' putting more tenants at risk of death due to exposure to deadly carbon monoxide fumes or gas explosions... one man died as a consequence of a faulty device.
Hussain pleaded guilty to charges of breaching s3(2) HSWA and failing to maintain appliances or to and keep a record of safety checks on appliances in properties in Byrkley Street, Waterloo Street and Needwood Street.
On average 20 people are killed every year as a result of faulty gas appliances.
Corgi Register
Self-employed plumber Colin Leslie Harvey, who trades as Harvey's Heating or Harvey's of Harpenden, admitted breaching reg 3(3) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and was not registered with Corgi to carry out gas works and has been fined£1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,895 and a £15 victim surcharge.
Mr Harvey had carried out work on gas fittings (a gas hob and a condensing boiler and associated pipe work) at a property in Park Mount, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, between August and November 2007, when he was not Corgi registered. A number of faults were discovered after the work was finished, including a leak in the boiler and other problems with the heating. An inspection carried out by a Corgi Inspector revealed the installations were "At Risk", could not be used and required immediate remedial action.
HSE inspector Nigel Fitzhugh said:
"It is illegal for an unregistered person to carry out work on a gas appliance. When unqualified workers try to bypass the law in this way they are not only putting themselves at risk of prosecution and a large fine, they are also putting their customer's lives at risk. Working with gas appliances is a difficult, specialised and potentially dangerous job and only fully qualified engineers should attempt it. Anybody employing someone to carry out work on a gas installation such as a gas boiler or hob should first make sure the person is fully registered, and therefore approved by HSE.
The HSE will not hesitate to prosecute those who flout the law in this way."
Property Refurbishment follies
In giving a brief rundown on a number of cases where property refurbishment has caused death or injuries over the past twelve months Robert Parkes, of HSE's National Construction Division, said:
"Tragically, last year, 38 people died on these types of projects and many more were injured or suffered ill-health because of poor health and safety practices. Whether you think of yourself as a property investor, developer or renovator, everyone has a role to play in helping reduce the number of serious and sometimes fatal incidents."
A Birmingham company director was personally prosecuted and has been fined £2,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,614 after an incident in which a worker was badly injured during conversion work, to a farm barn. A sub-contracted plasterer fell 4m through a temporary timber handrail on the first floor of the barn and sustained broken wrists and bruising to the left side, necessitating a 4-day stay in hospital. Sufficient measures had not been taken to support or protect anyone from falling from the landing area and the wooden handrail was not sufficiently secured.
In a similar conversion project Magistrates fined a property developing company £4,000 and ordered them to pay £1,880 costs after a 42 yr old labourer, while working for a brick-layer, was barrowing bricks and rubble along planks at first floor height when he fell onto a concrete floor, sustaining a broken wrist, ankle and pelvis. There was a significant risk of falling from the unprotected edges of the first floor extension as suitable and sufficient measures had not been taken to prevent anyone falling almost 3m.
A 36-year old refurbishment worker from Dudley died after falling 7m from a tower scaffold and led to the Smethwick property developing company being fined £80,000 and ordered to pay £10,000 costs. The court also fined principal contractors £40,000 and ordered them to pay £10,000 costs. The scaffold tower was not the right equipment for the work he was undertaking and was also erected incorrectly.
Part of a man's leg had to be amputated on a site in Shifnal when a tipper truck carrying 'tar-covered road-rubble' became unbalanced on uneven ground and toppled over on onto him, trapping him against a pile of brick rubble. Fines totalling £30,000 were imposed by the court on the two companies involved in the building project and they were ordered to pay £17,500 costs.
HSE's regional construction inspector, Richard Lockwood, said:
"Fines may have a serious impact on a small company but the effects and costs of injury or death are incalculable for the victims and their families. The relatively low cost of operating safe working practices is some measure of insurance against the loss of livelihood or life, the loss of profit and the loss of future business."
Falling Machine
Egger UK, the Hexham-based chipboard manufacturer has been fined £25,400 and ordered to pay £11,881 in costs, after pleading guilty to six breaches of health and safety legislation. It was also ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge.
Egger UK pleaded guilty to breaching reg 3 and 4 MHSW Regulations 1999 and reg 11, 16 and 19 PUWER.
The first incident took place on 18 May 2007, when a worker was crushed after a set of clamps which formed part of a chipping machine (Pessa machine) fell on top of him. The second incident occurred on 7 August 2007, when a worker became trapped in between a conveyor and processing machine. This caused severe injuries that resulted in his leg having to be amputated below the knee.
HSE Inspector Bruno Porter, said:
"A worker was clearing a blockage on the Pessa machine, which takes the lengths of trees and logs and chips them as the first part of the chipboard manufacturing process. While clearing the blockage, a set of heavy clamps dropped onto the worker resulting in serious crush injuries. Just three months later, another worker became trapped in a different machine, which led to the worker having to have his leg amputated.
Employers must prevent or control risks to people's health from equipment they use at work. An employer must ensure that appropriate risk assessments have been carried out, and that all work equipment is suitable for use. Any assessment and safe working practice must include safe isolation of all sources of energy, electrical and mechanical."
Severe Burns causes Death
Transition International Ltd, has been fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £50,000 and a £15 victim surcharge by Sheffield Crown Court after pleading guilty to breaching s3(1) HSWA.
The prosecution follows an incident at Penistone Road, Sheffield, on 14 March 2007 in which a 24 year old Polish worker suffered severe burns from which he later died, when an explosion took place in an induction furnace melting ferro-titanium. It was accepted that the explosion was probably caused by water entering the furnace from a contaminated drum of scrap material. At the time of the incident the young worker had been wearing a hooded sports jacket made of synthetic material and jeans rather than the recommended protective jacket and trousers suitable for molten metal environments.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Geoff Clark said:
"This was an horrific incident which resulted in the needless death of a young worker who had worked at the company for only a few short weeks. Not only was there a lack of adequate procedures to ensure that water or other dangerous contamination did not enter the furnace but, whilst it had indeed provided full personal protective equipment, the company had evidently taken no trouble to ensure that it was being worn in practice. Added to this workers were not being given appropriate information, instruction and training on the dangers of working with molten metal and of the need to follow safe working practices.
It is simply not good enough to pay lip service to safety in this way. Employers have a duty to ensure the health and safety of their workers and HSE will not hesitate to prosecute in situations where people's lives are put at risk."
Faulty Break
600 UK Ltd, of Landmark Court, Revie Road, Leeds, has been fined the maximum penalty of £20,000 by Dewsbury Magistrates' Court after pleading guilty to failing to ensure the health and safety of its employees under s2(1) HSWA. The company was also ordered to pay £5,046.80 costs.
The prosecution followed an incident in which a 47-year-old workman suffered a compound fracture of his arm, lost tissue and suffered muscle and nerve damage when the sleeve of his overalls became entangled in a vertical jig borer he was using at a factory in Heckmondwike.
He attempted to disengage the drive on the machine by using his left hand to operate a lever, but the spindle continued to rotate because of a fault on the brake and he had to be freed by workmates. The injuries resulted in permanent damage to the victim's arm.
Health and Safety Inspector Geoff Fletcher said:
"Given that this is a heavy industrial machine operated by a company which makes machinery of this type, they should have known what standard of protection was required. Guards should have been in place which would have prevented these horrendous injuries."
Unsecure Windows
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (formerly Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust) has been fined £18,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,399.05 at Sheffield Magistrates' Court, after pleading guilty to breaching s3(1) HSWA.
On 28 May 2004 the young man, a patient on Ward Firth 6 at the Northern General Hospital, was found to have fallen almost 12m to the ground from a window that had been fitted with a device intended to limit its opening to no more than 10cm which, because it was poorly maintained, did not restrict the window adequately. The patient survived the fall but suffered a number of fractures and serious internal injuries.
HSE Inspector Kirsty Welsh said:
"This case demonstrates all too clearly the need for hospitals to ensure that vulnerable patients in their care are not put at risk. The risk of falls from windows is well-known in the care sector. Hospitals have a responsibility to ensure they have preventative measures put in place and they are well maintained and effective in use. "
Asbestos Exposure
The City of Edinburgh Council has been fined £17,600 after pleading guilty to charges under s2(1) and 3(1) HSWA and reg 4(9) Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.
The contractor Dalkeith Demolition Ltd has been fined £11,333 after pleading guilty to charges under s2(1) HSWA and reg 8(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.
The City of Edinburgh Council contracted Dalkeith Demolition Ltd to remove asbestos-containing material disturbed by another contractor undertaking refurbishment work at the school. Dalkeith Demolition Ltd was not licensed by HSE to do such work nor were they competent to do the work. Their workers had not been trained so did not take established control measures to minimise the exposure to themselves as well as to other people in the vicinity.
HSE inspector Jim Skilling said:
"The City of Edinburgh Council failed to keep an understandable register of asbestos and failed to ensure that a full survey for asbestos was carried out prior to any work starting so the information available was not sufficient to alert persons to the immediate danger from the asbestos. In view of the Council's previous experience of managing asbestos, this was a very disappointing incident. Over 4,000 people are dying every year in Great Britain due to the unrecognised exposure to asbestos earlier in their working lives. Legislation came into force in May 2004 which requires the organisation in control of any non domestic premises to identify and assess asbestos in those premises.
The Council initially failed to identify that asbestos was present and then when it was established that asbestos had been disturbed, they did not ensure that a competent, licensed contractor undertook the work in a satisfactory manner."
Asbestos Removal
Waite Construction Ltd, of Denham, Uxbridge, has been fined £15,000, and ordered to pay costs of £26,488, by the City of London Magistrates' Court after pleading guilty to breaching reg 8(1) Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and s2(1) HSWA.
On 29 November 2006, HSE inspectors visited a site in Tudor Grove, Hackney, following a complaint from Hackney Council's Pollution Control team about workers removing asbestos from the boiler house, with no protection for themselves or others in the area. Waite Construction Ltd was the principal contractor for work on a block of units and a disused boiler house.
HSE inspectors found that pipes clad with asbestos had been removed and cut, even after local authority officers had advised that work be stopped. A Prohibition Notice was served for work to stop immediately and a further notice was issued to leave a skip undisturbed in an adjacent public car park. The second notice, called a "Notice to Leave Undisturbed," was served because it was believed that the skip contained asbestos lagging. Only then, did Waite Construction Ltd arrange for a licensed asbestos removal contractor to clean the public areas and seal the premises, pending safe removal of the asbestos.
The HSE investigation found that no survey had been conducted to check for asbestos, even though it was foreseeable that a building of this age would contain asbestos materials. It was also entirely practicable for Waite Construction Ltd to have arranged for a licensed asbestos removal contractor, before allowing workers into the area.
HSE inspector Sarah Snelling said:
"Waite Construction Ltd sent their employees to remove asbestos materials from a boiler room with no protection and absolutely no regard for their health. Even after the company was told that asbestos was present the men were sent back in to work in a grossly contaminated area. HSE will not tolerate disregard for the well-known risks of working with asbestos and the fines imposed today reflect society's concern."
Printing Problems
East Lancashire Box Company of Spring Mill, Spring Street, Rishton, Lancashire has been fined a total of £12,000 and ordered to pay £3,451 costs after a 16-year old employee's hand was dragged into a printing machine while he was cleaning it.
East Lancashire Box Company was charged with failing to ensure the health, safety and welfare of an employee under s2 (1) HSWA. Failing to make a suitable risk assessment under reg3 (1)(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, and also an offence under the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 in that they employed a child in an industrial undertaking.
HSE inspector Matthew Lea told the court that the charges related to an incident on the 28 March 2008 when the 16-year-old was cleaning a slow-moving roller using a cloth wrapped around his hand. The cloth became entangled in the top roller, dragging his hand into the machine, breaking a finger and causing crush injuries to two of his fingers. The company had no risk assessments or safe operating procedures for any of their machines and the procedure used to clean the printer roller posed a risk to their employees' safety.
The 16 year old was employed as a factory worker with the specific task of folding and breaking out cardboard boxes. However, if he completed these tasks the teenager was told to help with tidying up.
Matthew Lea said:
"This accident highlights the dangers associated with cleaning and maintaining printing machines. It is vital that companies develop a safe system of work for these operations. Companies should also consider the additional responsibilities associated with employing young people, and ensure that they are properly supervised to prevent those attempting tasks which they have not been trained to do - even if they are just trying to make a good impression by keeping busy. This accident was avoidable and sadly despite several operations, this young man is still unable to straighten his hand. He has also been unable to follow his chosen career path which was to join the armed forces."
Ed -
Section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 says: "No child shall be employed in any industrial undertaking."
Carrying Cage falls
Developers Wynbrook Ltd, of Nottingham Road, Stapleford, Nottingham, has been fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £3,362 costs by Lincoln Magistrates' Court after pleading guilty to breaching s3 (1) HSWA by failing to ensure contractors were not exposed to risks to their safety, including the risk of falling from height.
On 30 October 2007 the electrician was working on a residential development at The Cloisters, Wragby Road, Lincoln.
Wynbrook was the principal contractor on the site and had hired a telescopic materials handler and a man-carrying cage to carry out parts of the work. The cage was put onto the forks of the handler and used to lift a number of people to otherwise inaccessible parts of the site. However, the driver, who had not been trained in the use of the cage, failed to secure it to the forks on this occasion. The electrician was lifted up and the cage fell off, dropping around 2.5m to the ground.
The electrician suffered a broken wrist, severe bruising, and concussion and was unable to work for more than eight months. In addition, no-one who had been in the cage had worn a harness to secure themselves to it, and the driver was unaware the telescopic handler had a safety pin in the cab which could be used to prevent the forks from accidentally being dropped.
HSE Inspector Martin Giles said:
"Last year 61 people died and more than 14,000 suffered a serious injury after a slip, trip or fall from height at work. It is the most common cause of death at work. This incident could have been avoided, and a man might not have been seriously injured if the company had managed this risk by ensuring the telehandler driver had the appropriate training required to carry out the lifting operation safely. It was only through extreme good fortune that other workmen did not suffer the same fate."
Improvement notice for a leaky roof
DG Engineering Co. Ltd of Jackson Street, St Helens, pleaded guilty to two charges under health and safety legislation and have been fined a total of £5,000 and ordered to pay £1,628 costs. The company were also ordered to carry out repairs within four months
The site is an engineering workshop where racking for the glass industry is fabricated. The company was charged under s2(2)(d) HSWA that they failed to ensure that the roof of the engineering workshop was kept in a safe condition and failing to comply with an enforcement notice served under s21.
The court heard that on the 7 June 2007 the HSE received an anonymous complaint about the condition of the roof of the company. A hole in the roof caused by a missing roof panel meant that workers were affected in poor weather conditions as it rained in on them and was very cold.
The factory owners were asked to write to HSE with their proposed actions but failed to do so. A further complaint was made - the company were contacted and the owners again said they would set out their proposals. No response was received by HSE and the premises were visited by an inspector who issued an Improvement Notice requiring repairs to be carried out by the 18 January. This notice was not complied with and the company were prosecuted.
HSE Inspector Martin Heywood said:
"Companies have a duty to ensure the health and safety of employees. This missing roof panel was clearly jeopardising their safety and should have been repaired. The company were given ample opportunity to carry out this work, but had failed to do so. The staff wanted the roof repaired because they were getting wet and cold, but there was also a risk of further falling debris. Health and safety legislation is in place for the safety of employees and this prosecution was only taken after repeated attempts had been made to encourage the company to carry out the repairs. Companies must understand that they cannot ignore the law."
Machinery must be guarded
Lumgair Brothers of Gask Farm, near Forfar, has been fined £4,000 after pleading guilty to a charge under s2(1) HSWA. The employers was also fined £400 after admitting to breaching reg3 (4) MHSWR 1999. The court was told that the machine had remained unguarded for about six months. The guard was found on site, close to the machine by HSE on the day of the accident.
On 14 March 2008, William Culloch had been operating a machine used to transfer potatoes from a grading machine to a wooden crate. The machine was known to stop due to the weight of potatoes coming through, and employees manually started the conveyor belt moving again. Mr Culloch pulled the conveyor to restart it and his glove and thumb were caught in an unguarded chain and sprocket drive. Sadly his thumb could not be saved.
HSE inspector Lindsey Reid said:
"This young man's injury was entirely preventable. During our investigation, we discovered the machine-guard on the site and had it been properly fitted this incident would have been avoided. It is not difficult to imagine the problems this injury might cause a young man throughout his life. I would urge all farmers and other business people to check their machinery - ensure all guards are properly fitted and have a system of work to ensure machinery is not operated in an unsafe condition. Young people lack experience in the workplace and knowledge of workplace dangers. It is therefore vitally important that a proper assessment is carried out to identify the risks to which they will be exposed and ensure proper control measures are in place, therefore ensuring their safety and that of other employees. This is common sense, good business practice and a legal requirement."
Ignoring the risk
Advance Casting Co Ltd has been fined a total of £3,500 and ordered to pay costs of £3,000 by Redditch Magistrates' Court after the company pleaded guilty to breaching reg11(1) PUWER following its investigation into the incident that occurred, on 17 April 2007 at the company's site in Pipers Road, Park Farm, Redditch.
As part of the casting process, compounds are mixed in continuously moving tanks. On hearing a rattling noise, from one of the slurry tanks, the operator put his hand in an unguarded gap to check the chain tension. However, the moving chain drew his hand in until it became trapped and injured by the teeth of the chain sprocket.
Advance Casting had identified the risks and the need for improved guarding on the machine when it purchase the second-hand equipment but failed to fit guards. The company had not acted upon HSE's previous advice to guard dangerous parts of machinery. The court also heard that the company had no proactive maintenance programme.
HSE investigating inspector Ritchie McCrae said:
"The dangers of using machines without suitable safeguards are well known and long-established. Serious injuries such as amputation can result when limbs, or parts of limbs, become trapped by moving parts so it is fortunate that, in this case, injuries were not more severe. Allowing machines to be operated without suitable and appropriate guards despite HSE advice and ignoring a specifically identified risk is not just reckless but blatantly ignores the safety of employees and is a fundamental failure by the company."
Worker loses Finger
Julian Christian Designs Ltd, based in Chalgrove, pleaded guilty to contravening reg3(1) MHSWR 1999 and has been fined £1,000. The company also pleaded guilty to breaching reg11(1)(a) PUWER and has been fined £2,000 for the offence. They were also ordered to pay costs of £2,500.
The prosecution came after an incident in Cookham, Maidenhead on 18 July 2007. An employee was using an inverted, unguarded router to machine pieces of wood. Whilst using the router, which was rotating at over 8,000 revolutions per minute, the employee's glove got caught in the cutter tool and pulled his hand into the cutter - amputating the top joint of his ring finger and cutting the middle finger to the bone.
The company had not carried out a risk assessment for the work being undertaken and the cutter piece was not adequately guarded. Also, the injured employee was untrained in the use of woodworking machines and only had limited experience.
HSE inspector David Bibby, said:
"This case demonstrates the importance of firstly ensuring machinery is adequately guarded and people are trained to use it safely, but also of taking a step back and looking at what is being done to ensure appropriate controls are in place, hence the importance of suitable and sufficient risk assessments."
Ed -
Double issues of a Guard
ABG Ltd of Meltham, Holmfirth, West Yorkshire, has been fined a total of £3,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £2,633.20 and a victim's surcharge of £15 by Huddersfield Magistrates' Court after pleading guilty to two charges under s11(1) PUWER.
On 8 April 2008 a young trainee, Adam France, was working on a laminating machine when his right hand drawn in by the unguarded in-running nip of the haul-off rollers in such a way that the skin was pulled, causing severe hand injuries. He has been unable to work for a lengthy period and, once a promising cricketer, he is now unable to play the sport he loves at the same high level.
Only a week later on 14 April 2008 another employee, David Ealse, was also caught by an inadequately guarded roller press resulting in the loss of the thumb end of his right hand. He too has been unable to work for some time.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Kirsty Townend said:
"Both these incidents were avoidable. Had the equipment been properly maintained and appropriate safeguards been put in place neither of these workers would have been injured. Employers have a duty in law to carry out a risk assessment and to implement any necessary control measures, including appropriate safeguarding and safe systems of work to ensure the safety of their employees."
Scaffolding Fall
James and Patricia Smith, husband and wife partners at the JHS Group in Birkenhead, were prosecuted by the HSE for failing to make sure the scaffolding was erected correctly. The couple pleaded guilty to charges under Section 2(1) HSWA. James Smith has been fined £2,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,000 by Ormskirk Magistrates Court and Patricia Smith was also fined £2,000 with costs of £2,000.
It follows an incident when a 68 year old man was working for the Merseyside based group on a barn roof at Springwell Farm in Ormskirk. He fell 7.5m through a gap between the building and scaffolding fracturing his neck and skull, breaking his tibia and fibia and suffering bleeding on his brain
HSE Inspector Lisa Bailey said:
"This man is lucky to be alive after suffering horrific injuries as a result of this incident, which would not have occurred if the scaffolding had been erected properly. The couple relied on an employee without training to erect the scaffolding and, as a result, put the safety of people using it at risk. Scaffolding can be very dangerous if it hasn't been properly constructed. It is therefore vital that employers make sure staff are fully trained and competent.
I'd urge companies to make sure their staff have the correct training, or risk putting lives in danger."
Man falls through stairway opening
Ballenwood Properties Ltd, of West Yorkshire, has been fined £3,000 by Pontefract Magistrates after pleading guilty to a breach of reg6(3) Work at Height Regulations 2005. The company was fined a further £1,000 after pleading guilty to breaching reg3(1) RIDDOR. The company was also ordered to pay costs of £2,970.
It follows an incident in which a 59 year-old self-employed bricklayer suffered serious head injuries. The man fell 2.7m through a stairwell opening on the first floor of a house being built at the end of Redhill View, Castleford.
Slippery Surface
Sunlight Services Group has been fined £2,400 by Coventry Magistrates' Court, after pleading guilty to breaching reg12 (1) Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992. It also pleaded guilty to the charge of breaching reg3(1) MHSWR and the court imposed a fine of £3,200 for this offence. The court also ordered Sunlight Services Group to pay costs of £8,951.
The company was prosecuted for failing to ensure there was a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the wooden decking near a diesel pump in its London Road depot in Coventry and failing to protect drivers using the pump. The company was also guilty of failing to ensure every floor in the workplace was suitable for the purpose for which it was used and was not slippery.
The court heard how a driver at the firm's London Road depot was stranded after slipping as he prepared to fill his truck with diesel. After falling, he was alone for 20 minutes until managing to contact his wife by mobile phone and she called an ambulance. Surgeons needed to insert a plate and two pins to repair his broken ankle that was also dislocated.
The driver, an agency worker, had been working at the company for just two weeks when the incident took place on 20 November 2007.
The man had parked his vehicle next to the locked pump to fill up with fuel and slipped on the wooden decking in front of the diesel pump. He took just two steps before slipping and being injured. When the paramedics arrived, they too found the surface to be slippery and had to remove some of the decking before they could move the man to the ambulance.
It was not the first time drivers had slipped in the area, as the area was slippery and the pump had a minor drip leak when not in use, but no injuries had occurred before. The area has since been concreted at the suggestion of HSE and the Health and Safety Laboratory and induction training is now given to new drivers.
Speaking after the case, HSE inspector Pamela Folsom, said:
"An incident like this can often be seen as trivial and laughed off by employers but the cost to businesses and victims mean it is no laughing matter. In this case, the dangers should easily have been identified with even a basic risk assessment and avoided by installing a different type of flooring. Wooden decking was the incorrect selection of material for an outdoor area that was subject to weather conditions and fuel spillage. Although the designated Health and Safety Officer of Sunlight had observed a trip hazard from pallets they did not examine the slippery nature of the decking due to inappropriate footwear. The risk assessments that had been undertaken bore little reality to the actual hazards highlighted and demonstrated the inadequate training given to those employees undertaking them. Consequently the company took no action to reduce the likelihood of a future incident occurring until intervention by the HSE during its own investigation."
Lies leave man in Ocean of trouble
On Saturday 31 January 2009 at Dover, Mr Ioan Tanasoaie, a 31 year old Romanian lorry driver arrived and attempted to use the Channel Tunnel to cross over to France. He was refused owing to the quantity of flammable goods he was carrying. Mr Tanasoaie then headed for Dover Ferryport where he attempted to board a British ferry bound for Calais. At check-in he failed to declare that he was carrying several items of dangerous goods amongst his load.
The ferry operator was made aware of the Channel Tunnel's refusal to carry Mr Tanasoaie and the Port of Dover Police were informed. He was prevented from boarding a ferry and asked for documentation. Initially he produced some documents but not the dangerous goods notes. It was only when Mr Tanasoaie was asked for them by the Police that he produced them from the back of his cab.
Mr Tanasoaie was arrested by the Police pending further investigations by the MCA Enforcement Unit. Mr Tanasoaie stated that he had separated the dangerous goods notes at the Channel Tunnel and had thrown them on his bunk in the back of the cab. When passing through ferry check-in he claimed he had forgotten the notes were in the back of his cab and it was only when he was asked for them by the Police that he says he remembered. He was later charged with contravening the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods & Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1997 and was bailed to appear at Folkestone Magistrates Court.
Mr Tanasoaie pleaded guilty to the above offences and has been fined £2,700 and ordered to pay £3,104.45 costs.
In passing sentence the Magistrates said that the;
"Court takes the view that this is a serious offence, albeit he did not get on a ferry, the intention was to load dangerous goods that could have had dangerous consequences."
Dave Macrae, MCA hazardous cargo adviser said;
"Declaration of Dangerous Goods prior to boarding is very important as it informs the ships Master of the products on board so that he can be aware of the emergency procedures to follow.”
Asbestos woes in a school
Westpoint Schoolcare Ltd has been fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £515 after pleading guilty to breaching reg5, 8(1) and 11 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.
The firm failed to properly assess whether asbestos was present before starting refurbishment work at a Manchester school. The company also failed to take the necessary steps to prevent its employees being exposed to asbestos dust and undertook licensable work without holding a licence.
The company was appointed to complete refurbishment works at Manley Park Junior School on College Road, Whalley Range, including updating the toilets.
The school provided information from their asbestos register clearly identifying that the ceiling tiles contained 5 to 50% Amosite (Brown Asbestos). However, the company did not properly act on this information and failed to instruct their employees on the presence of asbestos or how to work without disturbing the asbestos ceiling tiles.
The ceiling was removed despite Westpoint Schoolcare Ltd not holding a licence to do such work and without taking any of the necessary precautions as required by the Control of Asbestos Regulations Act 2006.
HSE inspector Thomas Merry said:
"Westpoint were given the necessary information about the presence of asbestos in the area of the school in which they were working. They had ample opportunity to ensure that the ceiling was not disturbed, and arrange for a competent licensed contractor to remove the asbestos in a safe, controlled manner. Unfortunately this was not done and an employee of the company was needlessly exposed to asbestos fibres."
Outsourcing Risk
Health and safety consultant Richard Atterby of York has been fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £700, by Bradford Magistrates' Court after pleading guilty to an offence under s36(1) HSWA relating to his failure to make a suitable assessment to the risk to health of employees from a substance hazardous to their health.
The court also heard that an offence committed by his client, George Farrar (Quarries) Ltd of Keighley was due to the poor quality of his advice. A number of charges against George Farrar (Quarries) Ltd arose from an incident investigation and site inspection carried out by the HSE. The incident involved a stonemason, who fell over 3m from the side of a tipper truck that was being loaded with waste stone, breaking both heels. However, the investigating Inspector also noted inadequate controls to protect the health of employees at risk of inhaling stone dust.
George Farrar (Quarries) Ltd pleaded guilty to three charges under reg 3(1) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, reg 6(2) Work at Height Regulations 2005, and reg 7(1) Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, and has been fined £3,000 on each of these charges and has been ordered to pay costs of £4,532. An order for compensation of £3,000 was also made in favour of the injured worker.
Richard Atterby had provided health and safety services to George Farrar (Quarries) Ltd for over three years. His work involved carrying out risk assessments on behalf of his client. The court heard that the failure of George Farrar (Quarries) Ltd to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk to the health of their employees from exposure to respirable crystalline silica, arising from the processing of sandstone, was the poor quality of Mr Atterby's advice.
HSE Principal Inspector Keith King said:
"The health risks to stonemasons arising from exposure to respirable crystalline silica can be devastating. The risk assessment done by Mr Atterby was superficial and totally inadequate and it led to a high risk of exposure to respirable silica during stonemasonry work because effective measures to mitigate exposure were not determined and implemented. This should serve as a salutary lesson for all employers who rely too readily upon paid advisers. You cannot outsource your responsibilities - the duty of care remains with you as an employer and the selection and use you make of consultants is crucial. Employers have to make absolutely sure that any one who they commission to carry out assessments on their behalf is fully competent to do so. Consultants should not attempt to give advice on matters unless they have adequate knowledge, training, skills and experience to make the right decisions about risks and precautions that are needed.'
Fisherman Alive and well
A fishing skipper invited for interview by the Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) over allegations of fishing offences pretended he was dead - and then wrote his own obituary and had it published in a trade newspaper, but an MFA fisheries inspector on the south coast was suspicious, and contacted police who launched their own investigation into Derek Atkins, 56, of Allaway Avenue, Portsmouth.
Atkins pleaded guilty to a string of serious criminal charges on 12 December 2008 - including perverting the course of justice. He was also charged with deception and fraud, and failing to alert the authorities of change of name while on the sex offenders' register.
Atkins was also charged by the MFA with 20 offences of failing to submit proper landing log book declarations for the British registered fishing vessel Zuiderzee which he skippered in 2007 and a further charge of failure to notify a landing of scallops at Shoreham, Sussex.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency also reported Atkins for obtaining five Certificates of Competency by deception and sailing as an unqualified person under s52 Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
Atkins, who had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing, was sentenced to six and a half years, some of which will run concurrently, meaning that he will have to serve a total of 30 months.
His Honour Judge I Pearson said:
"I'm satisfied that you are a lying, cunning and calculating fraudster who has exploited friends and acquaintances for many years. In addition you are a determined identity fraudster who used a false name to earn income as an unqualified skipper, who with some limited experience endangered not just yourself and the vessel but the crew and other vessels. It is obvious that was an act that needs to be taken seriously."
The obituary published in good faith by the weekly trade newspaper, the Fishing News, on June 22 2007 said of Atkins:
"He was totally dedicated to his career and had little time for officials, MPs or political parties who he believed were mostly a waste of time, money and effort. He firmly believed that between them DEFRA, the MCA and the government's rules simply want to stop the British fisherman earning an honest living and have the British fleet scrapped to enable foreigners to take whatever they want from British waters. After all, he would say, they have had everything else so they may as well have our fishing industry too. People found him to be a gentleman at sea with a great sense of humour who would always help anyone. He was a quiet family man and will be deeply missed by his family and friends."
After the case a senior MFA spokesman said:
"This was a case of the enforcement agencies working together in what turned out to be a very serious matter that went way beyond fishing offences. Atkins had complete disregard for fishing rules designed to safeguard fish stocks and ultimately fishermen's jobs - but considering the serious nature of the other offences it's not difficult to work out why."
Cage Fighter Fraud
UK cage fighting champion Ian Freeman threw in the towel when he and his wife pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud, tax credit fraud and obtaining a mortgage by deception.
42 year old Freeman, who is known professionally as "The Machine" and his wife Angela, 34, both from Stanley, County Durham appeared at Durham Crown Court on charges of attempting to defraud the tax credit system of almost £13,000. Ian Freeman was also charged with tax evasion offences totalling £21,128 and obtaining a mortgage by deception.
Ian Freeman is thought to have stopped paying tax back in 1997 when he left his job as a security guard. He went on to forge a career as a professional cage fighter - setting up his own promotions company to run fight nights and cage fighting events across the UK - whilst also working in the media, appearing in a number of primetime television programmes and feature films. During this time he failed to register any of his income with HMRC and deliberately avoided paying tax on an income thought to be at least £30,000 per annum between the years 2004-2006.
The couple also fraudulently applied for cash from Tax Credits - a scheme designed to help and support low income families - making applications in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 in joint names but only declaring Mrs Freeman's modest £11,000 salary. The pair fraudulently claimed almost £13,000 during this time.
The Freemans were caught by investigators from HMRC who discovered that not only had they splashed out on a new £18,000 car and a £27,000 boat but had bought a property worth at least £1/4 million and fraudulently obtained their mortgage based on Ian Freeman's supposed business success and substantial earnings.
Commenting on the verdict HMRC North East Head of Investigation Peter Hollier said:
"Tax evasion and tax credit fraud are dishonourable crimes that significantly reduce the amount of government money available to help and support families, businesses and individuals. The couple showed blatant disregard for the tax system, and those involved in this type of activity should be warned that we will rigorously pursue them in order that they may be successfully prosecuted."
When the couple were arrested and questioned by investigators from HMRC, both denied the accusations. The pair appeared before Durham Crown Court in 2008 where they initially pleaded not guilty but with a jury waiting to begin their trial, they changed their minds and each put in a guilty plea.
Minimum Wage Failure
A Rotherham hotelier has become the second employer in South Yorkshire to be successfully prosecuted for National Minimum Wage offences. Ahmed Yassine, age 42, proprietor of the Phoenix Hotel, Rotherham, has been fined £2,250 after being found guilty of failing to keep required records and neglecting to produce appropriate documents for HMRC compliance officers. Officers were attempting to establish whether former employees had been paid the National Minimum Wage. The case was heard at Rotherham Magistrates' Court, where Yassine was also ordered to pay £500 costs.
Yassine was prosecuted by the Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office (RCPO) for 'failure to keep records' and 'neglecting to produce documents', both of which are required under the National Minimum Wage Act.
Northern Rock’s Future
Northern Rock will increase mortgage lending by up to £14 billion over the next two years in plans announced this month.
A new business strategy has been agreed that will see around £5billion of new mortgage lending for 2009 and between £3 and £9 billion from 2010 onwards, subject to market demand.
The new lending will be made on commercial terms to ensure that it represents good value for money for the taxpayer. It will allow Northern Rock to return to the mortgage market with a wide product range. To enable Northern Rock to focus on new lending, the company will be restructured so that the back book of mortgages is managed separately to its other business. The restructuring will be implemented subsequent to state aid approval.
The Government has made clear that it wants to see a well-functioning mortgage market where lenders lend responsibly and borrowers have access to a wide range of mortgages that they can afford to repay. Government policy towards Northern Rock is a part of meeting these aims.
Sympathy Only
The high court has rejected a judicial review application by Northern Rock shareholders. The court dismissed the application for a full judicial hearing into claims the government was unfair in its plan to compensate former shareholders in the nationalised bank.
David Greene, partner at Edwin Coe, who acted for the shareholders, said:
“For the small shareholders it was clearly disappointing not to succeed but they felt vindicated that the court concluded that they had raised issues of public importance since it made no order for costs against those shareholders and found that there were ‘compelling reasons’ why the matter should be allowed to proceed to the Court of Appeal. The shareholders are considering an appeal.”
The Treasury took over the shares when the bank was nationalised in February 2008, and claimed the bank should not be valued as a going concern as it would have failed without state intervention. However, shareholders contested this, claiming the basis of valuation was unfair, that Northern Rock was a going concern at the date of nationalisation, with a strong mortgage book and an excess of assets over liabilities. They claim the assessment of their compensation was unfair and incompatible with their rights under Art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case, SRM Global Master Fund Lp and Ors v The Commissioners of HM Treasury [2009] EWHC 227 (Admin) was brought by two investment companies and some 150,000 private shareholders who held up to a quarter of bank shares.
Dismissing the application, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton said:
“… we have some sympathy for the position of the former long-term shareholders of Northern Rock, who doubtless believed that they had an investment in a reliable bank. Ultimately, however, they entrusted their investment to the hands of the management of the company. As it turned out, their business plan was flawed and could not survive the unprecedented circumstances of the latter part of 2007.”
Deposit returned
In Landlord Protect Limited v St Anselm Development Company Limited [2009] EWHC Civ 99, the Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal ruled that an assignee who had entered into a contract to take an assignment of a lease conditional on the landlords granting consent was entitled to rescind the contract and to the return of its deposit.
The landlords, the assignor, the assignee and their solicitors had entered into negotiations following exchange of contracts to agree the form of the licence to assign. The landlords had sought to include in the licence to assign a clause requiring the assignee's guarantor to guarantee the assignee's liabilities beyond the period during which the assignee was liable to the landlords by privity of estate. The Court of Appeal held that a guarantee in this form would have increased or enhanced the rights that the landlords enjoyed under the lease and consequently was not a reasonable condition.
This case will be of interest to property practitioners dealing with licences to assign. Although the Court of Appeal decided in favour of the assignee, the case does illustrate the amount of time that it took for the assignee to get its deposit back (over two years) and also the other difficulties and obstacles that the assignee had to overcome.
Home Repossession (Protection) Bill introduced
Andrew Dismore MP has introduced the Home Repossession (Protection) Bill (HRP Bill) as a Private Members' Bill. The HRP Bill seeks to amend the Law of Property 1925 to require lenders to first obtain a court order for possession before they can sell a defaulting borrower's home. The HRP Bill will also give the courts the power, in appropriate circumstances, to delay the sale and to give the borrower more time to repay the arrears.
The HRP Bill was presented in response to the decision in Horsham Properties Group Ltd v Clark & Anor [2008] EWHC 2327 (Ch), which confirmed that a lender can sell a defaulting borrower's home without a court order.
Following the Horsham case, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) published a voluntary statement confirming that CML members will obtain a court order before seeking to sell, or appointing a receiver to sell, an occupied residential property when the borrower is in default.
Mr Dismore described it as "shocking that ... such a basic legal protection for home owners is not already part of our law". Mr Dismore told the House of Commons that this is a problem which is both immediate and urgent.
The second reading of the HRP Bill will take place on 26 June 2009.
Business Rates Liability
On 9 March 2009, the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 2009 (the 2009 Regulations) come into force. The 2009 Regulations allow backdated liability for rates to be paid in instalments when a rating list is altered with retrospective effect by a valuation officer.
In the Pre-Budget Report 2008, the Government announced that it intended to give businesses more time to pay certain backdated business rates bills issued before 31 March 2010.
Qualifying businesses facing such bills will now be able to pay their backdated liability in equal, interest-free instalments over a period of up to 8 years, rather than immediately. Beneficiaries will include the occupiers of a significant number of properties within the boundaries of English ports that have been affected by recent rating reviews.
The measures are intended to reduce the adverse impact backdated rates would have on a business' cash flow in the current economic climate.
Loan Guarantees hit £1million a day
Business Secretary Lord Mandelson has informed us of the success of the Government loan guarantee scheme after more than £1m of loans a day was underwritten to companies during the first few weeks.
Since the launch of the Enterprise Finance Guarantee five weeks ago, some 400 loans worth more than £40 million have already been offered and are being processed, he announced.
Demand and awareness of the scheme continues to grow steadily since the launch in January, with £14 million in loans processed in the past week alone. The scheme is on course to guarantee an additional £1.3bn of lending to smaller firms over the year.
Lord Mandelson said:
"These figures show the Enterprise Finance Guarantee is already making a difference to businesses. This targeted support is already helping hundreds of firms which would not have been able to secure finance without a government guarantee. Inevitably it takes time for schemes to take effect but the amount already lent, in only a matter of weeks, is good news for business. We will continue to work with banks to ensure individual branches are offering the guarantee and will continue to promote the scheme to small businesses across the country."
However, he warned the scheme was not a government grant or bail-out and was firmly targeted at fundamentally viable businesses which may be struggling in the short term, but which ultimately will be able to repay their loans.
Retirement Postponed
The recession is forcing small business owners to postpone retirement, according to a new survey conducted by Clifton Asset Management (CAM). The survey reveals that 80% of SME owners feel that retirement is currently more unlikely than it was a year ago - up from 65% who responded this way in a survey last year.
Neil Greenaway, managing director at CAM said,
"Clearly the immediate outlook for the SME sector is not all bad. Nonetheless, the key findings of our latest survey tell their own story, particularly in regard to people's retirement and pension plans."
Corporate Governance review for the Banks
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury have announced a review to recommend measures to improve the corporate governance of UK banks, particularly with regard to risk management.
The review is being chaired by the former financial services regulator, Sir David Walker. It will examine board management of risk (including the effectiveness of risk and audit committees), incentives to manage risk in bank remuneration policies, the competences needed on bank boards, board practices and structures, and the role played by institutional shareholders.
The review will give preliminary conclusions to commissioning Ministers in the autumn and final recommendations by the end of the year.
Strong State?
Minister for the Cabinet Office Liam Byrne has laid out plans to create a smaller, stronger centre of government capable of speeding up public service reform and helping Britain through the economic downturn.
In a speech to the Guardian Public Services summit, the Minister said the Government must focus on supporting frontline workers and allowing them to deliver the services their clients need rather than what the centre dictates.
Byrne informs us that the plans outlined will add to the £26.5 billion of efficiency savings already achieved by the Civil Service, improve Whitehall accountability and give greater independence to frontline staff while enforcing basic standards of service for everyone.
The measures include:
• Closing the gap between Whitehall policy and frontline delivery.
• A radical rethink of performance management in the Civil Service.
• Ensuring that improvements to public services are based on the latest evidence and insight.
Minister for the Cabinet Office Liam Byrne said:
"What people want is an economy where our performance matches our potential, a society of fair rules and fair chances. As an extraordinary country, whose sense of invention helped define this age, we have an extraordinary future ahead of us. That future is well within our grasp. But not unless government, the civil service, and our public services change with the world around us. Success comes not from accumulating, or hoarding, or concentrating power in the hands of politicians or civil servants - it comes from giving it away to people. We want a country of powerful people. And that is my guiding principle in reform of public services. Powerful people have professionals that work around them - not the other way round. Powerful people have services that are tailored to what they need; that help them make decisions about how to run their own lives. "So we won't walk away from Whitehall reform. The centre needs to be an agent of change, not an agent of control. We don't need a big government to have a strong state, but we do need a strong state to have a richer economy and a fairer society. We need an active government putting people power at the centre of its vision for the future."
New environmental regulations
The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009 (the Regulations) come into force on 1 March 2009.
The Regulations implement the Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/EC) in England. Similar regulations are expected to be made in Wales in early 2009.
The Regulations:
Impose obligations on operators of economic activities requiring them to prevent, limit or remediate environmental damage.
Only cover the most serious cases of environmental damage to land, water and to species and habitats.
Only apply to damage that takes place after 1 March 2009.
Are in addition to existing legislation relating to liability for damage to the environment.
Connecting to Public Sewers
In Barratt South Wales v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig [2008] EWHC 1936 (QB), the High Court held that a sewerage undertaker could refuse permission to connect to a public sewer at a particular location on the grounds that connection at that location would overload the public sewer and cause environmental harm. The risk that a public sewer may be overloaded is a common ground for sewerage undertakers refusing to allow developers to connect private drains to public sewers. The case highlights the importance of developers liaising with sewerage undertakers at the early stages of planning a development to avoid costly disputes.
Nuisance
In Dobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Limited and another [2009] EWCA Civ 28, the Court of Appeal determined three preliminary points relating to damages for nuisance and damages for breach of human rights. The most important issue was whether a person, living in the same household as property owners who obtained damages for nuisance, could obtain a separate award of damages for breach of their human rights. The Court of Appeal held that the award of damages in nuisance to the property owners was relevant when considering an award of damages under Article 8 for the person with no proprietary interest.
The issues raised in this case will only apply to a limited number of nuisance claims, where it is alleged that the nuisance was caused by negligence and the defendant is a public authority. However, the Court of Appeal has determined some important points of principle. Whether or not any of the non-property owning claimants will actually receive damages for breach of their Article 8 rights will depend on the findings at the substantive trial.
Sausage Protection
A new task force aimed at helping secure the future of the pig meat industry has been announced by Farming Minister Jane Kennedy.
The Pig Meat Supply Chain Task Force will focus on helping the whole supply chain to thrive in a way that is sustainable in the long term. It will bring together key representatives, from all sectors in the pig meat supply chain to increase collaboration between Government and the various sectors in the industry.
The Task Force will examine areas of concern that may include labelling, public sector procurement, endemic disease, and better communications throughout the supply chain.
Under its draft Terms of Reference, the Task Force will aim to improve the resilience of the pigments supply chain through increased collaboration and achieving best practice throughout the chain. It may make recommendations for changes but its primary focus will be on increasing resilience within the current regulatory framework.
Start date for LDPs
The SRA will, subject to Parliamentary approval, regulate Legal Disciplinary Practices (LDPs) from 31 March 2009. The SRA had originally hoped to regulate LDPs from 1 March, but the Ministry of Justice has said it wants extra time to make sure the relevant provisions will work well. LDPs are a new type of solicitors’ firm, which can include one or more lawyers who are not solicitors and up to a quarter of non-lawyers.
Young, vulnerable witnesses
The ministry of Justice has announced plans to give young, vulnerable witnesses better support and encourage more witnesses to come forward with evidence of crimes.
We have been informed the plans will enhance measures designed to make it less daunting for children to give evidence, and come alongside wider proposals in the Coroners and Justice Bill to put the needs of victims and witnesses at the forefront of the criminal justice system, and so aid the Government's drive crackdown on crime. They also encourage a better and more consistent support to young and vulnerable witness, as well as individually tailor the processes in place.
They include allowing young people more choice about the way in which they give evidence; formalising rules that allow a trusted adult to be present when children are giving evidence via video link; extending this support structure to include young people under the age of 18 years and allowing vulnerable defendants to use an intermediary to help them understand the questions they are asked when giving evidence.
Justice Minister Maria Eagle said:
"Giving evidence in court can be a frightening experience for children and other vulnerable young people. Over the past ten years we have made significant improvements to the way they are treated- but this does not mean we could not do better. We have a responsibility to make sure that everyone, and especially young and vulnerable witnesses, receive the support they need to give the most accurate evidence. We must also ensure that witnesses are not prevented from offering evidence by the fear of what could await them in court.
That is what the plans published today do. They recognise that all young people are different, and must be treated as such, and improve the support services available in the courts."
Over the last ten years video links have been introduced so that young people can give evidence from outside the courtroom and do not have to see the defendant. If they give evidence in courts, vulnerable witnesses may be screened from the view of the defendant, be offered an intermediary to assist them in understanding questions. In addition, the public gallery may, in some cases, be cleared and judges and barristers may remove their wigs and gowns to make the court room less intimidating.
The Government's response to the Improving the Criminal Trial Process for Young Witnesses consultation, identifies further scope for improvement, including offering greater flexibility so that young people can give evidence in the way they want. Many of the proposals have already been put to Parliament as part of the Coroners and Justice Bill.
Launderers Jailed
One man from Birmingham and one from Derbyshire have been sentenced for their part in a money laundering operation to 'clean up' the profits from serious organised crime gangs. These gangs were involved in drug trafficking, multi-million pound VAT conspiracies in the mobile phone industry, counterfeiting and credit card fraud.
A further five defendants received jail terms totalling 30.5 years in 2008.
Nick Burriss, Assistant Director of Criminal Investigation for HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), said:
"The successful conclusion of this case has resulted in a number of serious criminals being sent to prison. This was a highly sophisticated and complex fraud against the taxpayer and enabled the defendants to fund extravagant and luxurious lifestyles including properties, performance cars and designer jewellery."
HMRC investigation officers uncovered the sophisticated plot, codenamed Operation Elemi 2, following a complex investigation. The trail showed the defendants received the proceeds of crime in the UK. They acted as couriers to launder hundreds of thousands of pounds by exploiting the gambling industry.
During the course of both trials the court heard that money would be placed on deposit at casinos and withdrawn a day or so later. Other sums would be gambled. Thousands of pounds would be passed over the tables in order to disguise the original source of the banknotes. Monies gambled or exchanged at the casino provided the defendants with an apparently legitimate explanation as to their source.
In raids carried out across the West Midlands by HMRC investigation officers seized a total of £350,000. Around £200,000 was found in a residential property stashed in two holdalls and a further £150,000 was found stuffed in a Harrods carrier bag in a vehicle. The cash was seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and been reclaimed for the public purse. Some of the money was about or in the process of being laundered and some had just been laundered.
Forensic testing of the bank notes showed they were highly contaminated with heroin and cannabis. The results indicate such large amounts of cash could only become so polluted if they had been in contact with items or people significantly contaminated with drugs shortly before their seizure. The cash was in fact drugs money. It has since been returned to the issuing banks, including the Bank of England and Bank of Scotland, for destruction due to the high level of drugs contamination.
Pyramid Scheme Lockdown
The OFT executed entry warrants at three premises, accompanied by police who arrested three women for alleged involvement in the operation and promotion of a suspected pyramid scheme. The OFT also visited two other premises in Bristol and seized evidence. The OFT's investigation is at an early stage and no assumption should be made that any offences have been committed.
The investigation is the OFT's first use of new criminal powers under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The action comes as the OFT, as part of its Scams Awareness Month, is alerting consumers facing the economic downturn to the dangers of pyramid selling schemes which have seen a resurgence over recent months. The OFT estimates that such pyramid scams collectively cost UK consumers £420 million every year.
The schemes, often advertised through mailings, the internet, recruitment meetings or through relatives or friends, work by promising huge earnings if members recruit others. However in order for every participant to make money, there needs to be an endless supply of newcomers. The OFT estimates that 480,000 adults fall victim to these scams each year, losing an average of £930 each, but only one in 100 people report their experiences to the authorities. Often victims recruit family and friends to the scam, resulting in emotional as well as financial harm.
Pyramid schemes are unlawful under consumer protection laws which prohibit the establishment, operation or promotion of any scheme where money is made primarily from recruiting other people rather than from the sale of goods and services. Breach of the law is an offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Bus Ban
London Central Bus Company Ltd has been ordered to reduce its fleet of buses after appearing before the Traffic Commissioner for London. The ruling follows a maintenance investigation that led to an unsatisfactory report and a conviction for the Company on 10 September 2008 for using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. At the Public Inquiry in Westminster the Traffic Commissioner for the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area Philip Brown, told the company it must reduce its fleet by 20 buses - from 638 to 618.
The Public Inquiry heard evidence from a Metropolitan police officer about an instance where a wheel had fallen off one of the company's buses while it was in service. The Traffic Commissioner also heard evidence that the company's inspection systems did not meet the requirements of the Passenger and Public Vehicle Act 1981.
London Central Bus Company Ltd said training on this had improved since July 2008 when one of its vehicles had lost a wheel. The company has since introduced additional and refresher training through the use of DVDs, courses and mentors.
Myth: Pancake races are banned!
The reality
Health and safety requirements were given as the reason that a pancake race couldn’t take place last year.
A straightforward event like this one only needs a short, simple risk assessment. And when an event has taken place lots of times before, all that’s needed is a review of the previous assessment - just to check nothing has changed - so that the fun can go ahead!
Managing risk is about practical steps to protect people from real harm and suffering - not bureaucratic back covering.